Pettit Is An Invasion Of Privacy In The Workplace

In Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), a supreme court case, “Buck Doe” sued for damages when his social security was displayed on many of his court documents when he sought damages in the Black Lung Benefits Act. The documents were in an online databases which was a privacy breach. He claimed having his information open for anyone to see caused him distress, and he sought damages under the Federal Privacy Act of 1974. He was awarded damages.

Did you know that 58% of employers have fired workers for Internet and email misuse? And 48% justify employee video monitoring as an effort to “counter theft and violence?” According to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” of which 304 U.S. companies participated in, computer-monitoring results have led to the highest cause of employee termination. These companies used several tactics to eavesdrop on employees while claiming to be managing productivity or for security purposes. Some argue that surveillance is absolutely necessary to help protect and grow a business; others argue that employee and customer rights come first. However, companies that use such tactics often violate the privacy of individuals, exploit their private information and even punish those that do not conform to their standards.

Many people feel uncomfortable or embarrassed when having to display their personal body parts to any individual outside of their significant other. Performing a random drug test on an employee does not only display traces of substance abuse but also other health related factors that they may not want their employer to know of. Examples of this include: maniac depression, schizophrenia, and heart trouble (DeCew, 1994) (Hanson, et al., 2015). Additionally, individuals are very concerned about the disclosure of their personal information being decimated without prior knowledge or consent. In 2007, when George Clooney went into the hospital for a minor procedure, his information was accessed by 27 different people. They were disciplined but the damage was already done. This incident shows that secure computer files are not 100% secure and that the human interest in gossip is everlasting (Goldman, 2009). In some ways, it seems as if the employee is treated as guilty party before proven

The Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of intrusion on seclusion in Jones v Tsige. This decision provided the foundation for determining damages under the tort. The foundation in Jones was modified by case law. This multiple case analysis will explore how an Ontario court should calculate damages, with reference to the following cases: Alberta v Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Hopkins v Kay, and Condon v Canada. Taken together, these cases indicate that a damage award in Ontario should reflect the offensiveness of the invasion of privacy and the harm it caused. These factors should be balanced against any steps taken by the defendant to rectify the breach. Ultimately, this assessment should be

* In today’s world of fast-developing technology, in which the click of mouse can dispense a plethora of information, privacy for job seekers and employees is a significant issue. One type of privacy issue in the workplace occurs when a company gathers or circulates private or personal information about employees or candidates for employment.

Employers have to monitor employees for security concerns relating to intentional or accidental release of sensitive data. Mohl, shows in a 2006 survey by Proofpoint Inc.

The government and major companies have frequently leaked and misused the public’s information. For example, in Ted Koppel’s 2005 article on “Take My Privacy, Please!”, he mentions how Bank of America lost personal information on about 1.2 million federal government employees, including some senators. LexisNexis unintentionally gave outsiders access to personal files on over 310,000 people. Time Warner

Physical evidence, information from a reliable source, or a professional’s opinion, of work related misconduct or illegal activities occurring are valid reasons for investigations. “Employers’ intrusions on constitutionally protected privacy interest … investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances.” O’Connor v Ortega, 107 S. Ct. 1492 (U.S. 1987).

This section of the employee handbook is provided as a guideline for employees to understand the company policy and procedures regarding privacy in the workplace. While this section cannot address every possible scenario that may occur, the general policy will serve as a basis of understanding the key workplace issues and employee privacy. This section addresses privacy issues related to personal background information, off-work activities, and the corporate policy on the use of electronic monitoring. These privacy policies are designed to both provide a clear guideline for employees on the difference between job related and personal privacy. The policies are designed to create a standard set of

The issue of privacy is a big concern in the workplace. With the expanding of new technology, many employees are concern about his or, her privacy in the workplace. Employees have the right to go to work knowing that his or, her employer will not invade their privacy. The rights to privacy in the workplace only provide limited protection for workers against monitoring and breach of confidentiality. The National Work Rights Institute states, under the federal law, "the limited protection the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 provides to employees' has been reduced because the statue has been outdated."

As an American, we know, and are immune to this country starting to build on technology. Where every call or click online can be traced back, stored, searched and put together to reveal a portrait of private life. However, current law gives little privacy protection to information about these activities, overstepping the First and Fourth Amendment safeguards that are guaranteed to individual freedoms. There are two cases to be discussed, Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller, two of the most important Fourth Amendment decisions of the 20th century. “In these two cases, the Court held that people are not entitled to an expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily provide to third parties” (Thompson, para. 1). This proposition, know as the third-party doctrine, permits the government access to a vast amount of information about individuals, such as the websites they visit, who they have emailed, the phone numbers they call, and their utility, banking, and education records.

In 2012, Janis E. Roberts sued her former employer (CareFlite) for what she reasoned was an invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. CareFlite argues that Roberts was terminated for what they deemed as “unprofessional and insubordinate” (CITE THE CASE) activity posted on her Facebook. Roberts was working as a paramedic and she posted a comment on her coworker Schoenhardt’s page claiming that she “wanted to slap the patient” (CITE THE CASE) who was deemed to require restraining. An officer from Careflite noticed the post and the officer sent Roberts a message regarding the fact that the public can see her post and encourages Roberts to delete it. After Roberts responded to the officer’s message with an aggressive tone, Roberts deleted her original post that contained the “slap” comment. After this occurred, Roberts sent her coworker and email of the exchange of the messages between her and the compliance officer. However, Roberts

As much as a company should not invade the rights of its employees , it has the equal responsibility of ensuring that its privacy and that of its employees are not divulged or used in any personal intent by other employees . According to Nyman (2005 , more companies are being held accountable by employees whose privacy was compromised in the workplace because of what is seen as a lack in its measures to ensure their privacy . Therefore , if employers are being held accountable for such situations , Nyman believes that they should be given enough power to protect themselves from such liabilities

"Privacy. There seems to be no legal issue today that cuts so wide a swath through conflicts confronting American society: from AIDS tests to wiretaps, polygraph test to computerized data bases, the common denominator has been whether the right to privacy outweighs other concerns of society…" This quote from Robert Ellis Smith explains, in one sentence, the absolute need to ensure privacy in the workplace. One of the most interesting, yet controversial, areas concerning public personnel is employee privacy. What limits are there to employers’ intrusions into, and control over, employees’ behaviors and personal properties?

Privacy in the workplace exists only to a certain extent essentially because the organization has the right to search and seizure their property and the employees which utilize it. Therefore, I believe employees generally are limited to the amount of privacy they have on the job. Generally, much of the equipment, devices, and resources utilized at work are the property of the employer and therefore they have the right to monitor what employees are doing. In essence, employers have every right to invade employee privacy while the employees are utilizing the organization's equipment and resources. Further, employee privacy is limited because essentially employees are trying to safeguard the organization from litigation and the erosion of the organization’s reputation.